Sheryl Sandberg (of Facebook) decided to “honor” single mothers this Mother’s Day, in part because she says that she is one now. Since her husband died, technically she is a single mother, but she is not a single mother in the sense we usually understand the term. Sandberg is a widow, but the vast majority of single mothers are not widows. Most single mothers are women who either never married the fathers of their children (but still demand child support with minimal to no visitation for the father) or women who were married to the fathers of their children but divorced them in anti-family courts. Being a widow with children and what is usually called single motherhood are two very different things. By conflating the two, Sandberg is denying the existence of fathers who lose access to their children (not to mention half or more of their assets) in anti-family courts, fathers who can’t even get the visitation they are supposed to get, and of all the crime that gets generated by single motherhood.

Sandberg is lying to us about the realities of single moms and single motherhood. And the reason is obvious. It is the female herd mentality in action.

“Consent” is a way for men to rape women legally. think about the things they talk about like “consensual” cannibalism! You can have the most blatant rape now nowadays and the man just says “I thought it was consensual” and that’s that. Never mind that for example he had restrained her, hit her, or even killed her, or that people heard her scream (used to be the old legal rape method – make her too afraid to scream), or that he damaged her vagina (funny how as soon as that one became the rape standard there began a campaign to flood all of society with violent porn and claim all women like that) or that she was half unconscious – if she “consented” that’s all fine apparently.

Yeah, we hear about all those cases where a man murders a woman, and he gets off by saying that he had consensual sex with her. What are the feminists on the GenderCritical subreddit smoking?

My favorite part of this was how the feminist who wrote this brought up cannibalism. I would be real money that this feminist thinks that men secretly (or maybe not so secretly) eat women.

Why aren’t millennial women simply voting based on their vaginas? They shouldn’t need old feminists to tell them to vote for Hillary, right? It’s not because they are opposed to feminism (even if they swear up and down that they are not feminists). There are a lot of millennial woman who unconsciously (or maybe consciously) know that the traditional feminist and SJW rhetoric of Hillary Clinton isn’t not good for them. Sure, Clinton may become President, but that is bad in the long term for women. A Hillary presidency and her policies will just create more MRAs, more MGTOWs, and will create more fertile ground for more #GamerGates. Sanders seems like the safer choice for Democrats in this case.

Of course, the only difference between Sanders and Clinton, is that with Clinton will drive us off the feminist cliff at 100 MPH whereas Sanders will do it at 85 MPH. (That’s because Sanders is against a bit of feminism like rape cases being tried by colleges.) Sanders won’t save young women. At most, he will delay the world of hurt young women will be in by a couple of years.

If the article has any truth to it, most young men will not want anything to do with marriage. All the shaming language from tradcons, which are functionally equivalent to the UN sending strongly worded letters, can not compete with the desire of most men not to be cuckolded. The harshest shaming language from tradcons pales in comparison to the current disaster marriage is right now. If cuckolding becomes more commonplace then the difference only becomes greater.

Tradcons are fighting a battle they can’t win. If a man’s options are being cuckolded or having to occasionally listen to impotent shaming language from tradcons, nearly all men will choose not to be cuckolded.

For my last post about Avengers: Age of Ultron, let’s consider a fundamental mistake in the movie. Spoilers ahead for Avengers: Age of Ultron.

In the movie, thanks to the alien technology in the staff Loki was given by Thanos, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner can go from nothing to having Ultron exist in 3 days. While that’s necessary for the movie to work (and for the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe story to work), that is not how technological development would happen in the real world. That is because nearly all technological development is not going from nothing to everything like that. It exists on a continuum or a spectrum where most technological advances built on previous technological advances. I suspect that this fundamental misunderstanding comes from women and manginas (who are letting women’s methods of thinking become their own) because it’s like pregnancy where a woman is either pregnant or not. There is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, whereas for many other phenomena it is possible for it to be a little bit of something.

Thus, what happens is that women and manginas will focus on the end point of something and not realize all the disruption that can happen during the journey to that point. Sex bots are a good example of this. There is no end to the number of people who want to stop sex bots in an attempt to prevent men from having a sexual alternative to women. However, there is a lot of disruption that happen in the interim that will give men options without requiring the existence of sex bots. VR sex is one such example, yet, we hardly hear a peep from anyone on that. Even internet porn falls into the same category. Sure plenty of people complain about that now, but that is after the fact. They didn’t see what was happening from internet porn until it was too late.

For women the development of artificial intelligence will be a disaster. An AI has no reason to follow the feminine imperative. The “obvious” solution to a gynocentric woman or a mangina would be to prevent development of an “ultron” or an AI. However, like with sex bots, they are only looking at the end point. In the journey towards AI, there is a lot of disruption that will negatively impact the feminine imperative. That is why deep learning is a threat to the feminine imperative. Anytime decisions are pushed off on to computers (and deep learning is a significant shift human decision making to computer decision making), the feminine imperative will be negatively impacted. Yet, gynocentric women and manginas won’t see this coming. And this is not the first example of such a thing happening. There used to be a lot more women employed in the field of computer technology. That is because many of them were “human computers” or the equivalent in programming work. Once technologies like compilers were invented, the need for women in computer technology dropped like a lead balloon even though the need for programmers went through the roof.

If gynocentric women and manginas were going to try and stop the real “age of ultron”, they would have to shutdown all technological advancement in computer technology. Like with so many other things that are going to wreck the feminine imperative, it’s a long term process that involves millions of men. The death of the human race notwithstanding, that’s impossible.

I sat across from him and listened. He was trim, tall, bearded (as they all seem to be), a recent transplant, having only lived in Seattle for a year or so and worked at a start-up, after burning out at Amazon (as they all seem to have). He rode his bike around town; he had good taste in food and wine; and he lived across the street from where we were meeting. He was a software engineer or did something in tech (as they all did). And he was utterly unmemorable.

I don’t think he asked me a single question about myself. Our date—if you call these impromptu Internet meetings, dates—lasted an hour. It felt more like a job interview, but not the way a date is supposed to be a job interview. There was no grilling about where you were from and what your family was like and what you were looking for.

It’s all about Tricia Romano. How dare a man actually have a life and thoughts of his own. He was insufficiently interested in me and Romano’s job in journalism:

He didn’t appear to have any other interests—he certainly didn’t seem to have any interest in me. I am a journalist, so I am very good at asking questions to get people to talk about themselves. But this was like squeezing blood from a stone.

Another problem is that these men aren’t impressed by a woman’s credentials:

There were a lot of tech men. I could talk a blue streak about them. I don’t have much positive to say. The biggest thing, the thing that bothered me the most is I felt like my intelligence was greatly devalued,” she wrote. ”I am a smart woman. I have a master’s from Berkeley in philosophy.

Heaven forbid that a man should recognize that intelligence is something other than a piece of paper from Berkeley. There’s no reason for these men to be impressed by a degree that is likely to lead to, “Would you like fries with that?” These men also fail to be meet Romano’s (and other women’s) 4284 point checklist:

I often hear women say they either date A-holes or nerds—or if they’re really lucky, both in one,” she said. “They feel like they’re dealing with someone who has poor social skills, not a lot of style, and isn’t that attractive, or is decently good-looking, successful, or cool, but by default knows it and acts like it, with a huge ego and selfish mind-set in tow.”

One woman, Bridget Arlene, spent three years in Seattle for graduate school, and said that she actually moved out of the city, in part because of the type of available men—most of whom had computer science or engineering degrees and worked for Google, Microsoft, or Amazon. “The type of person who is attracted to these jobs and thus to the Seattle area seems to be a socially awkward, emotionally stunted, sheltered, strangely entitled, and/or a misogynistic individual,” she wrote in an email.

It sounds like Seattle might get renamed Misogyny City if these women’s hysterics are to be believed. Or maybe Seattle should be renamed City where men are gainfully employed because that’s a problem for Romano’s dating life:

This wasn’t what I’d signed up for. I’d moved back to Seattle, in particular to Capitol Hill, because when I’d lived here during the ’90s it was a beacon of diversity for weirdos. (I stress “weirdos”—there are few people of color in Seattle.) The weirdos were: young gay boys, old hippies of varying sexuality, straight artists and musicians, softball lesbians, punk-rock dykes who played house music, metal musicians, ravers, or people into the fetish scene. They were not straight, white guys from flyover country or California imported by a software company. They spent their time doing things other than making Jeff Bezos more money.

Didn’t these guys get the memo that straight white men aren’t allowed to live in Seattle? It’s like these guys actually believe they have the freedom to live and work where they want without having to get it approved by Tricia Romano.

These guys also didn’t get the memo that it’s their job to keep Tricia Romano entertained with excitement 24/7:

In a way they exhibit some of the same qualities of those professions—ego, arrogance, and unlimited amounts of cash. In San Francisco, said Violet, “There were a lot of men to date with disposable income who wanted to take women out. It’s just, it was so boring,” she said. “My dating life went from dating artists and writers and going on cheap but exciting dates, to men who thought the ability to buy someone an expensive meal made them interesting.”

Because there are so many people in tech in Seattle and San Francisco, it is like the men in tech have eaten two previously diverse and interesting cities whole.

There’s more examples of entitlement packed into every word of the article. I don’t have time to document them all. Even from this sample you can see why Tricia Romano deserves to be the May 2014 Entitlement Princess Of The Month.

In tech especially, which tends to attract autistic-like males who are considered antisocial losers (because most of them are) we are asking stones to yield water. Short on empathy and social skills, the boy-men in the field are incapable of seeing real world suffering and POVs distinct from their own narrow ones. Riding the wave of big money and perceived “hipness” they have an outsized sense of worth when none actually exists.

Other comments didn’t explicitly accuse men working in the tech industry of having autism or aspergers syndrome, but clearly implied it:

The males who specializes in information technology, primarily software development, at least USA born and bred – I cannot speak for expatriates of other countries working as such in the USA – are stereotypical nerds with unfortunately few social skills, little to no knowledge of any subject outside of their specialty in information technology, next to no knowledge of politics, history or literature and on and on. They also tend to remain juvenile males well into maturity in many aspects of behavior.

I do not know whether there is a nerdy female equivalent, but perhaps there is.

With regard to behavior of such males, there is no hope for change. Once adult, they are beyond remediation.

Any comment that talked about men in the tech industry having low social skills or low “emotional intelligence” is accusing them of having autism or aspergers syndrome like this comment:

I am not surprised. Techies are not known for sensitivity, emotional intelligence or social skills.

There are two things to notice here. The first is that an article about the tech industry brought out comments about how all men working in the tech industry have a disorder on the autism spectrum. This would not have happened unless there are a lot of women and manginas who hate the men working in the tech industry. The second is how these comments explicitly that men working in the tech industry are not curable. In other words, men working in the tech industry and defective and an ever present threat to women. (Even if these comments said that men in the tech industry were “curable”, that wouldn’t be much better. Since men working in the tech industry don’t universally have an autism spectrum disorder as is claimed in these comments, attempting to “cure” these men would be equivalent to sending them to a Soviet reeducation camp.) The people who wrote these comments are basically proposing that men currently working in the tech industry be barred from being employed in the tech industry (or in any other industry because they would be a “threat to women” wherever they go) and much worse than that as Evilwhitemale empire points out:

Here’s a thought exercise.

What is the relationship between the continuously expanded definition of autism and aspergers (to include many high functioning boys) and the recent feminist hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ and similar tech men?

hints:

-these conditions primarily affect males and are often characterized by lack of socialization combined with proficiencies in math, science, etc.

-the hubbub over ‘brogrammers’ appears to center around feminists being forced to share power in the workplace with these men that they can’t do without in order to make businesses run.
It would appear that it’s becoming clear to feminists that there’s a class of men (on the top end of the corporate ladder) whose talents they are unable to duplicate.

-mental illness classification seems like a pretty easy way to marginalize or strip rights from someone that you don’t like without requiring that they break the law first.

Executives say the traditional HR department—which claims dominion over everything from hiring and firing to maintaining workplace diversity—stifles innovation and bogs down businesses with inefficient policies and processes. At the same time, a booming HR software industry has made it easier than ever to automate or outsource personnel-related functions such as payroll and benefits administration.

The article had some direct quotes from company executives:

Ruppert Landscape Inc., an 11-year-old landscaping company with 900 employees, has never had a traditional HR department. Instead, managers must balance renewing contracts and ensuring that a client’s grass is cut to the proper height with hunting down talent at college recruiting sessions and teaching employees about the company’s 401(k) plan.

CEO Craig Ruppert said the decentralized structure fosters autonomy and accountability among leaders across the company, which is based in Laytonsville, Md., and covers markets from Philadelphia to Atlanta. He estimates that its managers spend 5% of their time on matters related to human resources.

“I just have a hard time understanding how somebody in an office two or four states away can do a better job of solving an employee problem than someone who has a vested interest in the employee,” Mr. Ruppert said.

There were similar sentiments in the comments to the WSJ article:

Sure, someone’s got to draft the employee handbook and distribute 401(k) forms, but really, mostly what HR does is create a barrier between management and job-seekers as well as employees.

I agree. The main purpose of HR departments is to make sure the most qualified job candidates never make it to an interview.

An HR department can turn an entrepreneurial, venture-backed success story into a Soviet-style Gulag almost overnight. I saw this firsthand early in my career.

HR departments in this country can be renamed in “Political Correctness Departments”.

Think about it. The main thing HR does is to make sure you run your company the way the government wants it run — from payroll withholding, to leave policies, harrassment training and anti-discrimination rules. It would be great if HR actually helped recruit talent, but that is rarely the case. Instead, they are the Voice of the State — like the Party functionaries who could be found in every work brigade in the old Soviet system.

Bob Townsend espoused a limited HR function in his book, Up the Organization, more than 35 years ago. Apparently, it’s still a revolutionary idea to some people.

That last quote is important. People have been trying to get rid of or scale down HR for at least 35 years. Many corporate executives see the problems with HR. Many HR functions can now be done with software. Given all this, why can’t companies seem to get rid of HR?

Both the article and various comments said that HR is needed to deal with lawsuits. One comment used the term “liability bombs”. They’re getting close to the problem, but they can’t quite name the problem. The problem is women. At any particular company, most of the women are in unproductive roles (like HR ironically) and are “liability bombs” To deal with female “liability bombs” more people have to be added to HR. Since most people added to HR will be women, this becomes a never ending cycle of of hiring women to deal with the problems of hiring women.

One reason tech startups are so feared by women and manginas is because they have not started the cycle of hiring women to deal with the problems of hiring women. Since startups aren’t hiring women due to the lack of women actually capable of doing tech work, they don’t need to hire HR women to deal with them. As tech startups grow, they have the potential to escape this cycle. If enough startups avoid this cycle while growing into larger businesses, they will show the way how to get rid of HR and all of the women who are employed to it or employed as a result of it. Women and manginas are afraid of this outcome.

Dear Women: come to Microsoft, to IBM, to Cisco, to Apple or even to Google/Facebook. We are “dinosaurs” (which means that we have been around for many years) and we actually have an HR department and diversity policies. The older ones among us (Microsoft, IBM, Cisco) are not liked by the macho and libertarian TechCrunch crowd – just like older people are hated by the “cool” young ones.

It’s the same with this comment:

Now, my daughter’s attitude is that she wouldn’t be caught dead applying to jobs with hi tech companies in Silicon Valley. She is repelled by what she hears about the corporate culture – and her impression that it’s filled with people like her classmates. Instead, she wants to work for governmental agencies or companies that she feels are run by “grown ups” such as IBM. This attitude is becoming widespread among female CS majors. I think it’s pretty sad that the best and brightest young women in the CS field are writing off big segments of the tech world as potential employers. These companies better act and act quickly.

If women were so vital for success tech startups would be failing left and right, but that isn’t happening. Instead startups are providing men in the tech industry an escape hatch from working at large corporations and the government. On top of that startups have made lots of men rich outside of the control of women and the feminine imperative. Men who work at startups are effectively GTOW with respect to employment. Their productivity is benefiting themselves and not women working in useless jobs like HR and diversity officers.

The reason why we see this article attacking startups and Obamacare attempting to make it harder to form startups is because it is in women’s interests to see men forced to work in large corporations and the government. Men are not serving the feminine imperative when they work at a startup. I also suspect there’s a fear that startups will spread beyond the tech industry. If other industries have a startup ecosystem, even more me will be able to keep their productivity for themselves. Startups aren’t just a threat to the feminine imperative in the tech industry. They are a threat to the feminine imperative in every industry.

If you take a look at the USA Today article, everything women do causes them to have their votes suppressed. Getting married suppresses their votes. Getting divorced suppresses their votes. Having to update their IDs suppresses their votes. I’m surprised the article didn’t say that women getting up in the morning suppresses their votes. The article says that it’s harder to update voter ID cards (and other forms of ID) after divorce than after getting married. Given that most divorces (around 80% to 90%) are initiated by women, that means that women are the cause of their own vote suppression. (Of course, this is probably an attempt to blame men for divorce when it’s women who actually cause divorce.)

I recommend everyone read the article at USA Today. It’s probably the best argument against women’s suffrage I have ever seen. If you can’t handle basic life tasks like keeping your IDs up to date, then you shouldn’t be voting.

Seriously, this seems to be a primary example of the feminine imperative. If something isn’t all about women, and how it affects them, then that thing must be made to be all about women

First of all, I love the term, “scrotal smarts”. We need to remember that one when a woman starts about “womb wisdom” or “feminine intuition”.

Josh is right that women feel the need to make anything and everything about them. Baby BOYS being circumcised definitely isn’t about women because women don’t have penises.

I have seen the same thing when it comes to medical conditions that only men can have. I remember several years ago seeing commercials on TV about how men need to get checked for prostate cancer for their “families” (in other words, women) even though prostate cancer has nothing to do with women.

In the movie, Fight Club, Helena Bonham Carter’s character goes to the same testicular cancer support group that the main character, a man, does. At one point she says that she has more of a right to go a testicular cancer support group than the main character does. While that is an absurd idea, I think we may not be that far away from women trying to take over male only medical conditions like that. For women it has to be all about them even if it’s biologically impossible for it to be about them like with testicular cancer.